Laughing Sage: The real story is the 80/20 Pareto rule: Women absolutely HATE receiving any advances whatsoever from the lower 80% tier of men they find unattractive. If it’s a man from the upper 20% hitting on them? BOOM, it’s no longer sexual harassment or creepiness. Getting attention from the lower 80 is tantamount to coming into contact with some mouth-breating monster from some mythological work.
Of course this is all relative. The 4/10 chick is going to have a laxer version of how far she can stretch that 20% within her own mental map.
But yeah, if you’re in the upper 20% of men for any given woman, then it’s pretty awesome. She just might want to bang you like 5 times a day.
I would like to thank my commenter Laughing Sage for this comment. In my previous post I noticed that women were half-prude and half-nymphomaniac.
This seems contradictory but in my opinion, being contradictory is the essence of women. The commenter attempts to clear up my contradictory statement that women are prude and nymphos at the same time.
He points out that a lot of the prudishness as we see so obnoxiously in this #metoo idiocy is simple female disgust at low quality men approaching them in a sexual manner or possibly even approaching them in any way at all! Hence the Omega grabs a female stranger’s ass and she calls the police. Yet Chad grabs the same woman’s ass and she giggles, swoons, bats her eyes and playfully grabs him back. Then she asks him for his number.
It is because females react so differently to different men, allowing one man to do things that they call the cops or scream metoo when another man does it, that the whole #metoo nonsense seems crazy. Obviously men are not equal under the laws of females. Chad gets to flirt while your average frustrated chump gets reported for sexual harassment and called into human relations, yet Chad and your AFC post said exactly the same thing to the same woman.
Obviously you can’t have laws like that.
You can’t say that Bob gets to rob liquor stores all he wants, while Joe, Jim, or Bill can’t, and if they do, they’re going down for 5 years in the joint. But this is the irrational regime that females have set up. After all, #metoo is based on feelings, not logic.
How do you not get accused of sexual harassment? You tell me! Don’t make any unwanted sexual advances? Well how do I know if it’s going to be unwanted or not unless I try? I don’t! So the law’s vague since no one knows what behavior one must engage in to break the law, and the same behavior would break the law one time with one woman while not breaking the law another time with another woman.
You can’t have laws like that either.
You can’t say that Bob gets to mug Mary all he wants to and it’s never a crime, but God forbid he mug Jane, Tracy, or Ann. Your crime is a crime no matter who you committed it against. It’s not a crime when you do it to one victim and not to another. Yet this is the craziness that women have set up with #metoo – a completely arbitrary law that doesn’t even have a coherent definition, is enforced against some men but not others, and is enforced by some victims but not others.
So the way women react to Beta and Omega men makes them seem unspeakably prudish.
So feminism seems so puritanical, prudish, Victorian, sex-hating and uptight because all of these feelings are simply part of the natural and normal mindset of most females.
The commenter also points out that this raging prude, as uptight and sex-hating as a nun with a ruler, can turn into a wild nymphomaniac when she hooks up with Chad. Wa-la! She’s not a prude anymore. Now she’s giving him porn star sex 3-4 times a day. She wants to do it day and night.
Once we put the prude/nympho dichotomy in the PUA/Game frame, it’s previous irrationality starts to make a lot more sense.
